Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> IMO if we have a clear use case for non-URI identifiers then we should
> choose "identifier", if not we should choose "URI"
For earl:WebContent it is clear that we need a URI to describe the resource. However, I can imagine some use cases for dc:identifier too. For example a hash or checksum of the resource to compare it at a later fetch of the same URI.
As to earl:Software, it seems to be the opposite approach: an identifier such as the build or version number may be the best identifier, and URI may sometimes be available too (as a location to download or find more information about the software).
> (but I'm not sure about what its "registered" status implies and how it
> differs from the "recommended" status).
This is a good point, we already have this shaky dependency on foaf:Agent.
Regards,
Shadi
--
Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |